bokio_get_item

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency semantics are covered. The phrase 'as Bokio returns it' hints at a raw, unnormalized payload, but the description does not elaborate on response shape or failure modes beyond what the schema already says about not-found errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded; nothing is wasted and no filler remains.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so 'as Bokio returns it' leaves the actual returned fields to be discovered at call time.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: itemId's origin (from bokio_list_items) and the not-found behavior, plus companyId's BOKIO_COMPANY_ID default, are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'artikel' domain gloss, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one item) plus the lookup key (id), and the parenthetical 'artikel' maps it to the Swedish term used in Bokio's domain. It is clearly distinguishable from bokio_list_items by the singular 'one item by id', though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: fetch a single item when you already have an id, versus listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over bokio_list_items or what to do if the id is unknown — that guidance lives only in the schema's itemId description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.